The Byzantine Loss at Manzikert
The decisive Battle of Manizert was one of the most significant defeats
of the Byzantine Empire. How were the Seljuk Turks able to defeat
Byzantium and occupy Anatolia in spite of Byzantium's longstanding
reputation for military might and her vast resources?
(by Constantine XI)

The Fourth Crusade
Among all the crusades, the Fourth particularly bears a black mark of
shame. Here the “armies of God” did not even fight the Muslims they had
been sent against, but, blinded by greed, controlled by the Venetians,
fought twice against fellow Christians. (By Timotheus)

Knights Templars
The Order of the Poor Knights of Christ and the Temple of Solomon or
The Poor Fellow Soldiers of Jesus Christ was founded in 1118 by Hugues
de Payens (Hugh of Payns) and eight other knights whose original task
was to protect the pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem. (By Rider)

The Battle of Neva
On July of 1240, the Battle of Neva was held at River Neva, near the
settlement of Ust-Ižora. The commanders on the fighting sides were the
Swede Jarl Birger and the Novgorodian, Prince Aleksandr Jaroslavich. (By Rider)

The Great British Revolution 1639-51
The English Civil War was neither English, civil, nor a war, but it
managed to kill more Britons than did either WWI or WWII. Encompassing
England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales on equal footing, it is best
envisaged as a revolution akin to the French and Russian Revolutions,
and followed an uncannily similar path to these two subsequent risings.
(By Paul)

This Month In History - November 2006 Edition November 5, 1605: four
hundred (400) years to the day, a plan to blow up the English
Parliament in Westminster was discovered and foiled. The conspiracy has
entered the history books as “the Gunpowder Plot”, and its exposure
and fortunate outcome are still celebrated today with fireworks. November 16, 1632: Gustav Adolf killed in battle... (by Komnenos)

We hope you've enjoyed this month's issue with the theme of Crusades
and Medieval History. Involving contrasting cultures and judged by
contrasting viewpoints, the Crusades are certainly one of the most
intriguing periods of history.

This edition, like
the others, has been made possible due to contribution from our forum
readers. We hope that you'll continue to support the magazine. If you
are interested in writing for next month's edition, please contact one
of the editors listed below. If you would like to assist in other
editorial work, such as contacting writers, we would also like to hear
from you!

There are great articles in this month's issue! I love the images provided...very clear and with such vivid colors. You've all done an amazing job! Thank you for making the AE Magazine such an enjoyable reading and learning experience for all!

Paul's article has some definite inaccuracies. The most glaring are the following two paragraphs:

England and Wales were religiously diverse countries and the largest
single denomination was Calvinism. Presbyterianism was also popular
with a quite large and powerful Catholic population existing,
especially in the north west. In practice, the English Government, in
a climate of increasing Puritanism, at least tried to practice
religious tolerance.

Scotland was a Presbyterian country. It had an extremely militant
Protestant sect with an intense fear and hatred of Catholicism, but it
had a small Catholic minority living in the western highlands.
Presbyterians also disliked Calvinism.

Besides the grammatical error in the first sentence, it is implied that the Puritans were religiously intolerant. (This is a very common misconception.) However, at the time of Charles I, it was in fact the Puritans who were not tolerated. This was the cause of the settlement of New England by vast amounts of Puritans. One only needs to take a look at the records of settlement - floods of immigrants throughout Charles I's reign, dropping nearly to zero, and even negative, in Cromwell's dictatorship, then the floodgates opening again when Charles II assumes the throne (who, it should be mentioned, did not heed his promise to the Covenanters and was a very Catholic king.)

But the next paragraph is even worse. Presbyterians were Calvinists. In fact, Presbyterianism was not a 'sect' of Protestantism as Calvinism, Lutheranism, etc. are, but merely a different form of church government, with presbyteries instead of episcopacies. John Knox, the founder of Scottish Presbyterianism, was a student of Calvin's who spent several years at Geneva with Calvin. To say that "Presbyterians also disliked Calvinism" is grossly inaccurate. It is correct that the Presbyterians disliked the Puritans, who returned the feeling; there was actually very little difference between the two except in matters of church government - the fact that they didn't get along had more to do with the traditional antagonism between Scots and Englishmen.

In sum, without any disrespect to Paul, I think this article could use some definite improvement. In its current state, it is not worthy of the standards that the foremost history site on the Internet should have. I could point out a few more salient errors but the above should be sufficient. It is a topic I happen to know just a little about, therefore I was able to notice these.

Well, the Battle of Neva article contains a few curious things, mainly concerning Birger jarl. First of all, there has never been determined that Birger actually led the expedition. The Novgorod chronicle on the battle (which is quoted in the article) only mentioned a "Spiridon" as leader of the Swedish force - a man who was actually killed in the battle. Riasanovsky translated that name to Birger in 1963, but did not claim he was jarl Birger Magnusson. In any case Birger was still not jarl in 1240 - he got that title in 1248. How a man who died on the banks of Neva could have gotten that post eight years later is a mystery to me.

Further there are no mentions of the campaign in Swedish chronicles - as opposed to the failed expeditions of 1220 and 1249, and it is generally believed the expedition was a private raid - much like Mats Kettilmundsson's attack on Reval - and not some kind of official war campaign (especially since Sweden was ridden by civil war at the time).

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum